Invalid power of attorney and uncertain property identity can defeat suits for declaration, possession and injunction.

A suit for declaration, possession and injunction cannot be prosecuted through a power of attorney holder where the power of attorney was executed outside India and had not been adjudicated before the competent authority; the text treats that objection as substantive and fatal to maintainability. It also states that relief over immovable property depends on clear identification of the suit property, because an executable decree cannot rest on uncertain pleadings, incomplete measurements or an unidentifiable survey reference. On that basis, the note records that the suit failed for want of authorised representation and uncertain property identity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was maintainable through the power of attorney holder when the power of attorney had not been adjudicated before the competent authority; (ii) Whether the plaintiff had proved the identity of the suit property so as to entitle him to declaration, possession and injunction.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was maintainable through the power of attorney holder when the power of attorney had not been adjudicated before the competent authority.

Analysis: The power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff was executed outside India and had not been adjudicated before the registering authority. In the circumstances, the power agent had no authority to represent the plaintiff or depose on his behalf for the institution and prosecution of the suit. The objection was held to be substantive and not a mere technicality.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable through the power of attorney holder and this issue was answered against the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff had proved the identity of the suit property so as to entitle him to declaration, possession and injunction.

Analysis: The pleadings, amendment to the schedule, and the Advocate Commissioner's memo showed uncertainty in the identification of the property. The Surveyor was unable to identify the property on the basis of the available map and clear measurements were lacking. A decree for possession must be capable of execution and cannot rest on an uncertain description of property.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the suit property, so the reliefs sought could not be granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the Trial Court was set aside, and the suit stood dismissed for want of maintainable representation and uncertain property identification.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for immovable property reliefs cannot be maintained through an invalid or unauthorised power of attorney holder, and no executable decree can be granted unless the suit property is clearly and reliably identified.

---